Can't understand why the tribunal took Hibberd's valuation of "low 30's" into consideration. Clearly anything coming out of that guys mouth has no credibility. They should have taken the actual obtained valuations and worked with those, and not deducted a further $2k. If the repair is well documented and carried out by reputable company then there is no reason why this car can't go on to live a long and happy life and now valued at an appropriate point. The "stigma" may well dilute over time. It's a great looking M5, just needs euro plates, a number plate surround, and original grilles

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

but he declined offer of 35k and is trying to sell it to that lady who joined for 40k.

and looks like decision was made a month ago.

easy 10k profit there aye?

edit:

[8] Mr Flaws says that the vehicle is worth significantly less because of this undisclosed history. Mr Flaws has now applied to the Tribunal, claiming that he was misled about the vehicle’s history and seeking to recover the purchase price plus compensation of $15,000.

12 hours ago, hotwire said:

Yep but i think the $2000 for "use of vehicle" should not have been deducted from the original amount.

[44] In fixing the actual damages to be awarded to Mr Flaws, I must then take account of the fact that he has owned the vehicle for 16 months, over which time it has been driven approximately 6,000 kms. Mr Flaws has obtained value from this vehicle during that time, and I would not be doing justice by the parties if I failed to take account of the value of that use. However, I must also acknowledge that a well-maintained BMW M5 does not depreciate significantly in value. Mr Hibberd acknowledged this during the hearing, and agreed that such vehicles hold their value well. As a result, although the vehicle has been used by Mr Flaws, that use will not have led to a substantial depreciation in the vehicle’s value.[45] Taking account of those factors, I consider it appropriate to reduce any damages award by $2,000 to reflect the benefit Mr Flaws has received from his use of the vehicle. Consequently, I consider that Mr Flaws’ loss, as a result of being misled about the history of this vehicle, was $7,850.

I think the $2000 deduction is more than fair and the judge has taken careful consideration in this judgement according to the above extract.